Richard III Announcement Spurs Excitement, Skepticism

Below:

Next story in Science

The announcement that the bones of English King Richard III have
been identified "beyond reasonable doubt" has spurred excitement
— and some skepticism — among the archaeological community.

"I'm really excited by it," said Lemont Dobson, a historian and
archaeologist at the School of Public Service and Global
Citizenship at Central Michigan University. "This is one of those
things where people are talking about archaeology and real
science, not
pseudoscience on television."

On Twitter, "Richard III" was trending Monday morning, a fact
that generated some amusement among users.

"Man, when's the last time ' Richard
III ' was trending? Tewkesbury?" wrote GristList editor Jess
Zimmerman, referring to a 1471 battle in the War of the Roses in
which a young Richard played a role. That ongoing civil war would
take Richard III's life 14 years later, two years after his
ascent to the throne.

But some scientists struck a more sober note, warning that
ancient DNA analysis is subject to contamination, and grumbling
that the results were revealed via press conference prior to
peer-review by fellow researchers. [ Gallery:
The Search for Richard III ]

"The DNA results presented today are too weak, as they stand, to
support the claim that DNA is actually from Richard III," said
Maria Avila, a computational biologist at the Center for
GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark. "Perhaps
more in-depth DNA analysis summed to the archaeological and
osteological [bone analysis] results would make a round story."

University of Leicester archaeologists announced today (Feb. 4)
that a skeleton found months before under a city council parking
lot
does indeed belong to the medieval king. The researchers
suspected the bones might belong to Richard III, because they
sported wounds consistent with the king's death in the 1485
Battle of Bosworth Field. Several
wounds to the skull, in particular, were consistent with
almost immediate death by either brain injury or blood loss.

The skeleton also exhibits a twisting of the spine known as
scoliosis, which meshes with historical reports of Richard III as
a "hunchback." (He wasn't actually a hunchback, the researchers
point out — scoliosis may have made him look slightly lopsided,
however.) The date of the bones and burial location also fit the
Richard III identification.

For the University of Leicester team, however, the nail in the
coffin of the identification was a DNA analysis that matched that
of Michael Ibsen, a modern-day descendent of Richard III through
the maternal line, along with DNA from another descendent on the
maternal line who asked to be kept anonymous. The DNA used is
mitochondrial DNA, which is contained in the part of the cell
that transforms nutrients to energy; this type of DNA is passed
down only through the maternal line.

Ancient DNA, however, is very susceptible to contamination,
sparking some skepticism.

"Before being convinced of ANY aDNA study, it should be explicit
that all possible cautions were taken to avoid potential
contamination," Avila wrote in an email to LiveScience. "It is
just part of the protocol." (aDNA refers to ancient
DNA.)

Avila also warned that people could share mitochondrial DNA even
if they didn't share a family tree. To be confident that Ibsen is
related to the owner of
the disinterred skeleton, the researchers must present
statistics showing how common the DNA profile is in the United
Kingdom, she said. Otherwise, the similarities between Ibsen's
mitochondrial DNA and the skeleton's could be coincidental.

Avila noted that she doesn't necessarily disbelieve the team's
conclusion that the skeleton is Richard III's, just that the DNA
evidence isn't the strongest piece of the puzzle.

"It seems to me that osteological as well as archaeological
evidence is stronger, however 'DNA evidence' sounds fancier so it
looks like they used it as the hook to capture the attention of
media," she said.

Announcing a discovery

Those caveats had some scientists wishing the Richard III team
had published a peer-reviewed scientific paper (a process that
can take months or more) before announcing their identification
to the public. The Richard III team said today that they would
submit their findings for peer-review and publication, though not
before more media exposure. The BBC's Channel 4 will run a
documentary on the archaeological hunt for Richard III and the
discovery tonight. [ Science
of Death: 10 Tales from the Crypt & Beyond ]

"I love the fact that there is so much excitement over Richard
III discovery, but I'm also not keen on press-conferences for
science," paleobiologist Victoria Herridge of the Natural History
Museum London wrote on Twitter.

Without detailed methods and statistics, Herridge and other
scientists complained, it's difficult to judge the veracity of
the findings.

Not everyone criticized the University of Leicester's immediate
announcement. The team avoided sensationalism, said Central
Michigan University's Dobson.

"I think they went about it in probably the most rigorous way,"
Dobson told LiveScience. Criticisms of the press conference are
"missing the point of this kind of discovery," he said, because
public interest is huge.

"Whether there's a press conference or not, it's going to be
covered by the media, because that character occupies a place in
our cultural psyche," Dobson said. "In one sense, they are giving
the public what the public demands, which is access to knowledge
that would typically be restricted."

The responsibility of archaeologists, Dobson said, is to present
that knowledge without cutting corners on scientific rigor.

Nor did the DNA
results trigger universal skepticism, given the multiple
clues consistent with the body being Richard III.

"It's an impressive undertaking that the University of Leicester
has pulled off: Not only did they find the cemetery and the body,
they confirmed through numerous lines of evidence that the body
was likely that of Richard III," anthropologist Kristina
Killgrove, a professor at the University of West Florida who was
not involved in the study, told LiveScience.

Based on the research done in this case, Killgrove said, "I trust
that they know what they're talking about and that it will stand
up to peer review."